3 ms·

That argument is tiresome. Many libertarians want to enforce a very particular and ahistorical version of property rights, one dictated from above and with a s

by scarmig 13y ago

That argument is tiresome. Many libertarians want to enforce a very particular and ahistorical version of property rights, one dictated from above and with a studied blindness for the reason we've invented the group of rights we think of as property. They want to subject everyone to a society where state violence is used for and only on behalf of people who in the past were granted monopoly access to some material good. Force seeps through everything we do in a society, because it's a good like any other. Many libertarians demand everyone be forced into a machine of their own invention. And that's not any more damning of them than of anyone else, but they should own it. They're not hoping for a world where people aren't forced into things, but a world where people are forced into their own narrow vision of what's moral and righteous.

avar 13y ago
What I'm pointing out really has nothing to do with libertarianism, for what it's worth it's not a political position that I personally adhere to. I'm pointing out that whatever your political leaning you don't "just" get the government involved. Even if you think you should have a larger government than you have now the question is what kind of larger government, and once you make the wrong choice there's a huge inertia in the system that makes correcting that choice very hard. So even people that agree that government should do more aren't easily brought on the bandwagon of the something the government wants to do being the right version of that "more".
- saraid216 13y ago
  > Even if you think you should have a larger government than you have now the question is what kind of larger government, and once you make the wrong choice there's a huge inertia in the system that makes correcting that choice very hard. To quote Theodore Roosevelt, > The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impractical visionary is far less often the guide and precursor than he is the embittered foe of the real reformer, of the man who, with stumblings and shortcoming, yet does in some shape, in practical fashion, give effect to the hopes and desires of those who strive for better things. Woe to the empty phrase-maker, to the empty idealist, who, instead of making ready the ground for the man of action, turns against him when he appears and hampers him when he does work! Moreover, the preacher of ideals must remember how sorry and contemptible is the figure which he will cut, how great the damage that he will do, if he does not himself, in his own life, strive measurably to realize the ideals that he preaches for others. Let him remember also that the worth of the ideal must be largely determined by the success with which it can in practice be realized. We should abhor the so-called "practical" men whose practicality assumes the shape of that peculiar baseness which finds its expression in disbelief in morality and decency, in disregard of high standards of living and conduct. Such a creature is the worst enemy of the body of politic. But only less desirable as a citizen is his nominal opponent and real ally, the man of fantastic vision who makes the impossible better forever the enemy of the possible good. tldr: don't make perfect the enemy of good. This comes several paragraphs after the famous "Man in the Arena" bit.
- scarmig 13y ago
  My point is this: the concept of a larger government is very murky, so we should be very careful when we're talking about it. The stereotypical libertarian will propose universal, strict enforcement of violence used to protect people to whom the State has granted monopoly access to material goods. I don't recognize that as a smaller State than someone who proposes that except annually taking some proportion of it and redistributing it. One state may be better than the other, but it's still all pile of violence, configured in a different way.
  - anoncowherd 13y ago
    >> My point is this: the concept of a larger government is very murky, so we should be very careful when we're talking about it. The US government is pretty fucking large right now, is it not? In fact, it's an Empire, and serves as a great warning example of what a minimal government can/will become. >> One state may be better than the other, but it's still all pile of violence, configured in a different way. Exactly. So how about no State then? They say that the difference between a Minarchist and an Anarchist is "about six months". The period of time in between is irrelevant. The point is that a lot of Libertarians end up going all the way once they start seeing reality for what it is.
nickff 13y ago
One might say that socialists want to enforce an oft repeated history of slavery and theft.
- steveklabnik 13y ago
  ... if one was trying to grandstand and spout meaningless platitudes.
- trekky1700 13y ago
  Or one could stop looking to the extreme as an inevitability in either case.
- modfodder 13y ago
  One might say the conservatives are doing the same (in the name of capitalism).
vidarh 13y ago
I used to freak right wing libertarians out by following this like of thought with them when I was politically active. I had one in tears during a break in a debate because I was there representing a Marxist party, yet I agreed with him about most issues. He could not understand why, and he saw it as destroying his credibility. I pointed out that to me, as a marxist (some would argue the term libertarian socialist, or left communist would be more descriptive), his arguments for individual freedom was the right starting point for evaluating most policy, but the only logical conclusion is to limit government recognition of property rights too, as a large portion of the laws to protect private property takes away more rights from the public at large than what it offers to the public as owners: I may gain exclusive rights to a small area, but I lose access and even limited rights to most of the world. And In fact most countries do recognize that property rights must be limited to various extents to safeguard the rights of the population as a whole, through things like guarantees of access to land areas held in common (or owned by the government) that will not be sold, or legal protections for access to beaches or wilderness that often extends to granting legally protected public access to privately owned land. The question is not whether or not property rights must be limited, but where to draw the balance. Yet somehow right wing libertarians tends to want to want to tighten property rights, while at the same time they argue for reducing government intervention in pretty much everything else. The inconsistency is glaring to me.

by scarmig 13y ago

avar 13y ago

What I'm pointing out really has nothing to do with libertarianism, for what it's worth it's not a political position that I personally adhere to. I'm pointing out that whatever your political leaning you don't "just" get the government involved. Even if you think you should have a larger government than you have now the question is what kind of larger government, and once you make the wrong choice there's a huge inertia in the system that makes correcting that choice very hard. So even people that agree that government should do more aren't easily brought on the bandwagon of the something the government wants to do being the right version of that "more".

saraid216 13y ago
> Even if you think you should have a larger government than you have now the question is what kind of larger government, and once you make the wrong choice there's a huge inertia in the system that makes correcting that choice very hard. To quote Theodore Roosevelt, > The citizen must have high ideals, and yet he must be able to achieve them in practical fashion. No permanent good comes from aspirations so lofty that they have grown fantastic and have become impossible and indeed undesirable to realize. The impractical visionary is far less often the guide and precursor than he is the embittered foe of the real reformer, of the man who, with stumblings and shortcoming, yet does in some shape, in practical fashion, give effect to the hopes and desires of those who strive for better things. Woe to the empty phrase-maker, to the empty idealist, who, instead of making ready the ground for the man of action, turns against him when he appears and hampers him when he does work! Moreover, the preacher of ideals must remember how sorry and contemptible is the figure which he will cut, how great the damage that he will do, if he does not himself, in his own life, strive measurably to realize the ideals that he preaches for others. Let him remember also that the worth of the ideal must be largely determined by the success with which it can in practice be realized. We should abhor the so-called "practical" men whose practicality assumes the shape of that peculiar baseness which finds its expression in disbelief in morality and decency, in disregard of high standards of living and conduct. Such a creature is the worst enemy of the body of politic. But only less desirable as a citizen is his nominal opponent and real ally, the man of fantastic vision who makes the impossible better forever the enemy of the possible good. tldr: don't make perfect the enemy of good. This comes several paragraphs after the famous "Man in the Arena" bit.
scarmig 13y ago
My point is this: the concept of a larger government is very murky, so we should be very careful when we're talking about it. The stereotypical libertarian will propose universal, strict enforcement of violence used to protect people to whom the State has granted monopoly access to material goods. I don't recognize that as a smaller State than someone who proposes that except annually taking some proportion of it and redistributing it. One state may be better than the other, but it's still all pile of violence, configured in a different way.
- anoncowherd 13y ago
  >> My point is this: the concept of a larger government is very murky, so we should be very careful when we're talking about it. The US government is pretty fucking large right now, is it not? In fact, it's an Empire, and serves as a great warning example of what a minimal government can/will become. >> One state may be better than the other, but it's still all pile of violence, configured in a different way. Exactly. So how about no State then? They say that the difference between a Minarchist and an Anarchist is "about six months". The period of time in between is irrelevant. The point is that a lot of Libertarians end up going all the way once they start seeing reality for what it is.

nickff 13y ago

One might say that socialists want to enforce an oft repeated history of slavery and theft.

steveklabnik 13y ago
... if one was trying to grandstand and spout meaningless platitudes.
trekky1700 13y ago
Or one could stop looking to the extreme as an inevitability in either case.
modfodder 13y ago
One might say the conservatives are doing the same (in the name of capitalism).

vidarh 13y ago

I used to freak right wing libertarians out by following this like of thought with them when I was politically active. I had one in tears during a break in a debate because I was there representing a Marxist party, yet I agreed with him about most issues. He could not understand why, and he saw it as destroying his credibility. I pointed out that to me, as a marxist (some would argue the term libertarian socialist, or left communist would be more descriptive), his arguments for individual freedom was the right starting point for evaluating most policy, but the only logical conclusion is to limit government recognition of property rights too, as a large portion of the laws to protect private property takes away more rights from the public at large than what it offers to the public as owners: I may gain exclusive rights to a small area, but I lose access and even limited rights to most of the world. And In fact most countries do recognize that property rights must be limited to various extents to safeguard the rights of the population as a whole, through things like guarantees of access to land areas held in common (or owned by the government) that will not be sold, or legal protections for access to beaches or wilderness that often extends to granting legally protected public access to privately owned land. The question is not whether or not property rights must be limited, but where to draw the balance. Yet somehow right wing libertarians tends to want to want to tighten property rights, while at the same time they argue for reducing government intervention in pretty much everything else. The inconsistency is glaring to me.